Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Arguing with a Creationist

Back in the fall I was approached by a creationist, let's call him "J. U.", who wanted to debate me. Now, as it happens, this past fall was an insanely busy time for me, what with teaching a large course and dealing with minor health problems. So I wasn't very enthusiastic, to say the least.

J. U. started by insisting that my observation that "nearly all biologists accept evolution" was "patently false". When I pointed him to this evidence, he did something few creationists have the honesty to admit: that he lied.

Eventually our discussion (such as it was) focused on the incoherence of the claim "humans have free will". J. U., like a good creationist, insisted that free will was meaningful and that humans have it. I suggested that he read Wegner's book, The Illusion of Conscious Will. Not surprisingly, he refused -- creationists, as a rule, are rarely interested in learning anything. But again, he was surprisingly honest about his reasons. This is what he said: "I'm not going to read it because I don't want to waste my time reading something that can't possibly be true."

Is there any better example of the creationist mindset? They already know the truth; no amount of evidence you present can possibly change that. This is why it is, in general, a complete waste of times arguing with creationists.

8 comments:

I am in no doubt, Mr. Shallit, that you are already familiar with the comments elicited of Professor Behe during his cross-examination in the Kitzmiller trial, wherein he argued that there was no scientific evidence published to support the evolutionary basis of the development of blood clotting. Professor Behe was subsequently presented with a list of more than fifty books and about nine pamphlets which adressed the very issues he had argued had not been developed by scientists. To paraphrase his reaction, essentially he stated that he hadn't read them, and wouldn't read them, because he already knew they were wrong.

With Professor Behe as a role model for the rigorous pursuit of knowledge, it is no wonder that people such as J.U. might be reluctant to educate himself.

I was struck by this: "This is what he said: "I'm not going to read it because I don't want to waste my time reading something that can't possibly be true.""

Early in the Freshwater affair I offered to lend my copy of Francis Collins' "The Language of God" to a fundamentalist. On learning that Collins, an evangelical Christian, accepted evolution, the fundamentalist declined my offer, saying "I don't need to read anything I don't agree with."

They already know the truth; no amount of evidence you present can possibly change that. This is why it is, in general, a complete waste of times arguing with creationists.Creationists are by no means alone in this habit. It's a characteristic of people who do not wish to think for themselves.